Marxists using the power of the government to destroy lives that do not speak the government approved dogma in the name of human rights. I bet this article is an inspiration to "Presidential Hopeful" Klinton, imagine the possibilities government control can have to protect us from those that do not speak government approved speech.
vergeturi

"I don't see any objection why Pro-Life-ism or Creationism can be added to the list."

Because we are talking here about science class. In science class teatchers are supposed to teach science, not rubbish. (See point 18 of the report: "The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities, to (...) firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline ...").

"And yes, we would still get illegal theft, like we do now. So Belien is not lying about this."

Yes he is, because he says that "without legalized abortion" (150,000 abortions a year), "the number of German children would increase annually by at least 150,000". This implies that without legalized abortion there would be zero abortions, which is a blatant lie.

Just about every writer in journalism will add their own twist to their reporting.  The ideal of a completely objective press is a fantasy that would assume we are not human, but robots.

No talented writer (and I include Paul Belien in that list) is able to write about a subject they care about without trying to convey to their readers the angle they see the topic from.

While I do not have time to verify the statistics provided in his report, any suggestion made that Europe is abandoning her Christian roots for a completely secular society even to the point of pentalizing people for taking a stance on Faith is quite accurate.  Worse, governments are denying free speach to those who try to voice ideas contrary to these liberal policies.

Paul Belien has not lied in this article, but has expressed points that he believes are supported by data as interpreted by him.  He is not alone in these thoughts and many intelligent, forward thinkers would agree with what he has presented.

You may not agree with him, but to attack his integrity because you differ with his views is hardly worthy of a good debate.  One thing I've noticed in blogland is that Conservatives tend to allow the Liberals a chance to leave their thoughts behind, but most of the Liberals tend to delete Conservative comments.  Seems the fact your accusations are still on this page would give Mr. Belien a point for continuing the spirit of fair play.  You could return the favour by being more civil with your "tongue" (keyboard).

Lord, grant me the strength to change the things I can;

the serenity to deal with the things I cannot change;

and the wisdom to know the difference.

In the "About" section of this weblog The Brussels Journal quotes H.L. Mencken: "I believe in being free, acquiring knowledge, and telling the truth."

Unfortunately, as soon as Christianity is involved, Paul Belien cannot live up to Mencken's standards and seems to refrain from being free, acquiring knowledge and telling the truth.

In the title of article above there are already two lies. Europe doesn't silence Pro-Lifers, nor does it silence Creationists.

Belien continues: "Next week, the Council of Europe is going to vote on a resolution imposing Darwinism as Europe’s official ideology."

As roughdoggo already explained, "the Council of Europe merely proposes that the politically correct "equal time" principle should not be applied to the promulgation in classrooms of rubbish posing as science." Conclusion: Belien lies when he uses the word "imposes". He also calls Darwinism an "ideology" but maybe this is not lying but only plain ignorance. H.L. Mencken was at the Scopes trial. He knew what "imposing ideologies" really means.

Belien's next item is abortion. He writes: "Without legalized abortion the number of German children would increase annually by at least 150,000 – which is the number of legal abortions in birth dearth Germany."
This is a blatant lie. Everybody knows that without legalized abortion, we get illegal abortion or abortion abroad. Why does Belien lie about this?

Considering all this lying and cheating, wouldn't it be better to remove Mencken's quote in the "About" section and replace it by the real objective of The Brussels Journal?

@ Harbison

When people are no longer capable of separating facts from opinions, they can no longer make HONEST judgements.  And if, furthermore, they are unwilling to apply principles in a consistent way, and instead apply them SELECTIVELY (i.e. only when it suits their purposes) then democracy will become a pipedream.  Hence, we have here the spectacle of modern 'westerners', like yourself and Schaveiger, pretending to be 'democrats' and yet advocating the selective banning of opinions, i.e. the freedom of (political) speech of opponents. 

It does not matter what Mr Lerle thinks and says.  What matters is that today he can be convicted in a German court for SAYING what he thinks, and not for any illegal DEEDS.    You may think he is a "bigot", and maybe he is.  So what?  I think you are a "bigot" too, but I would never condone a court punishing you for your 'speech' or opinions.   

A "bigot" is a label, and anyone can SUBJECTIVELY hang such a label on anyone else.  That is precisely why in genuine democracies there is freedom of (political) speech, because - unlike in autocracy - the law should never be implemented in an ARBITRARY way.   If one can lock up people simply for expressing opinions (on which one can hang labels like "racism", "insult" etc...), how is that different from islamic regimes hanging labels like "anti-islamic" or "blasphemous" on political opponents' necks, or from the old communist regimes sending "enemies of the people" (read "enemies of the party") to gulags? 

Whether Mr Belien is "propagating a falsehood", or not, is absolutely insignificant compared to you (and Schaveiger) helping to further undermine the very 'tenuous' remnants of 'democracy' in Europe today. There can be no genuine democracy without freedom of political speech. Belien MAY be propagating an insignificant falsehood, but you ARE propagating intolerance and nondemocracy (where a ruling orthodoxy perpetuates its rule by 'silencing' unorthodox opinions).

This report is false. Lerle wasn't convicted for comparing abortion to the Holocaust. He was convicted for Holocaust denial. He said that Auschwitz was a deception, and that the gas chambers could not have killed the number of Jews they're claimed to have killed. The documents describing his conviction are on his own website, at http://www.johannes-lerle.de/

If you read further Lerle's own writings, you will discover that he is a vicious antisemite who claims that the "Jew-controlled propaganda media" tricked the US into war with Germany in 1941, that Jews convinced the Romans to throw Christians to the lions, started the Iran-Iraq war, and all sorts of other vile nonsense.

This false story has been widely disseminated in the United States. Mr. Belien is threfore responsible for propagating a very nasty falsehood and for giving comfort and support to a bigot. Shame on him!

"Not humans, eh? Then what species are they?"

This got me thinking.  I don't think there is an agreed definition of human.  Is 23 pairs of human chromosomes the definition of human?  Are Down's or Turner's children human then?  Does it have to be alive?  Are frozen embryos human then?  Not so simple really.

@ Jari

I appreciate your desire "to discuss Paul Belien's opinions".  I, for one, am certainly not "preventing" any such thing, and will now get out of the way.  But, I do retain the 'right' to call a "fundamentalist" (someone willing to 'silence' the opinions of others, either through personal violence or through judicial and legislative abuse of power) when I see one.

@ Schaveiger

1)...

2) You are doing it again: you are misrepresenting what can factually be verified!   In my original contribution there is nowhere any mention of "Christian churches are imposing etc....".  The words "christian" and "churches" do NOT appear at all.  And yet, you STILL claim that I "linked this" to my purported freedom-of-speech "syndrome".  Either you are a flat-out liar or you are incapable of making accurate empirical observations (i.e. read what is in front of you, rather than what you IMAGINE to be there).  

3) In response to your question: yes, when a court convicts someone for expressing an opinion, that is an ACTION which prevents or harms the freedom of speech of all other citizens.  It is a warning which tells them that they too could get punished CONCRETELY for expressing opinions that are not in agreement with those of the ruling orthodoxy.  It is the most fundamental negation of genuine 'democracy'.

And yes, there should be limits on the ACTION of certain 'speech', but not on the CONTENT of speech. Is that really too difficult for you to understand, or don't you want to understand it because you like to see your political opponents persecuted? How often does this have to be repeated on this or any other forum?  Let's illustrate this.

If you shout "fire" in a crowded cinema (when there is no fire) you are not conveying any opinion or information, but you are simply trying to create an accident or incident.  That is not free political speech, but a forbidden DEED.  Or, if I stand everyday in front of Verhofstadt's house and call him insulting 'names', I am simply harassing the poor man through actions, and this has nothing to do with expressing my opinions on him in proper venues (like newspapers, internet fora, or meetings etc...). 

Freedom of (political) speech simply means that people should be able to express their opinions about anything in 'proper' venues.  And laws which explicitly forbid the holding and/or propagating of certain opinions (on whatever) are the most characteristic feature of intolerant authoritarianism, totalitarianism and tyranny.   They are designed to maintain a ruling orthodoxy and are antithetical to democracy and freedom.

3) Lerle is not my "icon".  I know nothing about the man, and I probably disagree with him on most things.  I simply say that he is entitled to express whatever opinion he holds on abortion or anything else.

By contrast, your dismissive attitude is short-sighted and reminds me of the Middle Ages when 'unpopular' people were also often 'feathered and tarred' for holding unorthodox and/or unpopular opinions.  You are simply no different from the "Arab Street" in your lack of concern for judicial or legislative abuse of 'different' people.  Nothing is easier than running with the popular 'crowd', which is what you and the Belgian parliament are doing. You certainly have forgotten Voltaire!

4) I am neither a simplistic intelligent design supporter, nor a simplistic evolution supporter.  Those are labels that can mean different things to different people.  It is even absurd to juxtapose them as such, since they ask different questions.

Scientific theories about evolution deal with PHYSICAL processes of observable change around us over time.  They simply cannot deal with the question of ultimate SOURCE and MEANING of human life and of the physical world around us.  They are limited to the world of so-called 'positive' sciences. 

"Intelligent design" theories can mean different things.  To the extent they question and perhaps refute certain 'evolutionary' views about the observable changes in the fysical world, they could be considered as having positive science aspects.  But, questions about ultimate source  or origin of life properly belong to the discipline of filosophy, which is more 'speculative' in nature and which tends to rely more heavily on deductive reasoning and less on empirical observation.  Yet, man can never escape the need to rely on both deductive reasoning and empirical observation.      

"Next week, the Council of Europe is going to vote on a resolution imposing Darwinism as Europe’s official ideology"

Even Darwin would be rolling in his grave if this passes. 

The Sprouts strike again! Maybe youze guys should take a good look at these sites before you shove your feet in so deep that no hydraulic jack will get them outta there! (I ain't saying where "there" is.)

Hint: It appears that not all the relevant information regarding the Lerle affair has been provided to us by this website, or the ones hypertexted here. But judge for yourselves ...

forum.darwincentral.org/viewtopic.php?p=151298&sid=59d5669bd4f9a8d9cc6da228d01ef93b

homepage.mac.com/gerardharbison/blog/RWP_blog.html#bcw204497756

Where are all the German Christians?  And where is the Pope, or is he too busy issuing Commandments for drivers?

When a law and/or a court decision are this morally WRONG, it is time for peaceful civil disobedience!

Otherwise, quoting the eloquent Pastor Martin Niemöller:

“First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Mrs. Merkel  TEAR DOWN THIS COURT DECISION !

A Reagan American

I guess what is bothering me is the rampant attempts to censor views. From this somewhat biased observer it sure seems as if the state is especially concerned with censorship. Freedom of speech doesn't seem to be very well understood in Europe.

Whenever there are differing opinions, individuals and groups are "persecuted" either officially, unofficially, or both. I do not believe that ardent 'creationists' would allow for the evolutionary take on human origins were they "in charge." Of course, any true Christian would naturally combat all attempts at secularism and any true atheist would do the opposite. This is the nature of things. Agnostics, weak Christians and weak atheists are the only ones capable of sustainable compromise, but suffer because of their ideological "weakness."

Pierre Legrand

The Pink Flamingo Bar

@ Schaveiger

1) Indeed, I have difficulty - and I am quoting you now directly - "to distinguish statements out of opinions".  I suspect every reasonable person would have difficulty with that, because I have no idea what that sentence of yours could possibly mean.  It's a meaningless sentence or, if you want, it could mean almost anything at the same time.  Perhaps, the problem here is your limited knowledge of English, but I suspect it is worse, i.e. a reflection of a poor capacity to think complex issues through.

2) Another problem of yours is the constant refusal to make empirical observations, i.e. in this particular case to read what is in front of you, NOT what you IMAGINE is in front you.   Nowhere did I say anything about "Christian churches wanting to impose etc...".  How then can you claim that I would equate such an aim as part of "freedom of speech or opinion"?   A discussion with you is like fighting Don Quichote' s windmills, i.e. you are unable to address an issue and prefer to pursue imaginary 'strawmen'.

3) Actually, "imposition" of certain theories in school curricula, and "banning" of other theories, would have nothing to do with "freedom of speech or opinion".   Imposition and banning anything are ACTIONS - not speech - and they belong properly in the political and judicial domains.  They have nothing directly to do with freedom of speech and/or opinion of the individual.  

The issue was that an individual, Johannes Lerle, was convicted in a German court for expressing an OPINION on the subject of abortion.   As an individual he certainly could not IMPOSE, nor BAN, anything in school curricula of the society at large.    In fact, you are the one who is clearly for "banning" an opinion, since you refuse to even address the issue of the violation of Mr Lerle's freedom of speech by a German court (and implicitly by contemporary German law). 

What you seem unable (but really unwilling) to grasp is the following.  A society needs to tolerate freedom of speech and opinion in order for the public, or the 'polity' at large, to be able to make informed decisions.  That was the great achievement of the 'European' Enlightenment and the scientific revolutions that came out of the 18th and 19th centuries.  That achievement was essentially the realisation that no 'orthodoxy' can have a monopoly on knowledge and 'truth' and, in order to safeguard that realisation constitutonal free speech rights were 'cemented' in liberal western constitutions.   Clearly that realisation is no longer there among Europe's elites today, which means that "democracy" is on the way out there, to be replaced by a new autocratic orthodoxy.  

4) Indeed, my commentaries tend to be "lengthy" because we are dealing here with serious and complex issues.   Your shallow simplifications and 'strawmen' do not clarify anything really, except perhaps your unfounded 'belief' of you possessing the whole truth. 

Perhaps our views on contemporary theories of Creationism and of  Evolution may not be very different.  We will never know, for I am only inclined to engage in discussions with people who have a reasonably open mind.  The fact that you are willing to condone the 'silencing' of certain opinions (by legislative and/or judicial 'fiat' in Germany and elsewhere) tells me that you are essentially an intolerant "fundamentalist".   Discussions with such people are usually a waste of time.  Such people are usually not interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the 'truth', but rather tend to seek only confirmation (or re-affirmation) of their own existing opinions and 'beliefs'.    

Paul Belien: "Though one may disagree with people who take the Book of Genesis literally (believing that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh) surely secularist political organizations telling people what they may or may not believe, constitute a far greater threat to human rights than religious institutions telling their faithful how to vote."

If religious institutions, Christian churches in particular, believe in the truth of creationism and intelligent design, and are morally opposed to both homosexuality and abortion, then it would seem natural for them to instruct their members to vote for politicians and parties that "fit" their perspective.

With regards to public education, curricula cannot be a "free market" where students are taught to select which facts they believe are true and which they disagree with and therefore consider untrue. Students attend school to learn from others, not to cherry-pick ideas, which if not presented as facts, will result in confusion, although critical thinking (questioning) and self-motivated learning are essential components to any individual's "education." Unfortunately, the debate between evolution and creationism/intelligent design cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of either party. There is a struggle here, but neither side is particularly more accommodating than the other. Why should an atheist, agnostic or Hindu have to put up with a narrow Abrahamic perspective of human origins?

Paul Belien: "Hirsi Ali, Fortuyn and van Gogh did not defend Europe’s traditional Christian moral order. People such as Johannes Lerle and Christian Vanneste, the French parliamentarian who was convicted for “homophobia,” do. The latter are being persecuted by Western Europe’s political regimes – a phenomenon which is ignored completely by the Western mainstream media, who participate in the persecution."

Whenever there are differing opinions, individuals and groups are "persecuted" either officially, unofficially, or both. I do not believe that ardent 'creationists' would allow for the evolutionary take on human origins were they "in charge." Of course, any true Christian would naturally combat all attempts at secularism and any true atheist would do the opposite. This is the nature of things. Agnostics, weak Christians and weak atheists are the only ones capable of sustainable compromise, but suffer because of their ideological "weakness."

The irony is that the socialist mind-set that has taken over the Western elite blocks out acceptance its blatant self-contradictions. It is against creationism for its assault on rationalism, yet 1) rescinds freedom of thought to squelch all debate 2) gleefully embraces a constellation of irrational ideas.  What rational mind can explain its mystical faith in the disinterested philanthropy of politicians and the legion of central planners has improved the lot of humanity? Is the source of this belief found in seeing them as a race of supermen? Why when the evidence after so many decades is so massive as to reveal to anyone with the most simple intellect that the greatest violator of all socialist moral claims are socialist policies?

If this Western elite claims to root out all defects of humanity, as socialist desire,

1. Why the 60 year silence on the horrors of communism and the perpetrators of it? Why allow Pol Pot to die of old age in the comfort of his own bed?

2. Why support for decades the genocidal death cult of islamism in Palestine, and elsewhere, and look the other way its legion of followers in the West?

3. Why coddle the likes of Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Castro of Cuba? Why the absence of indignation when Arafat walked casually away from potential peace in 2000, and then celebrate him afterwards?

4. Why support the UN with barely a reproach to that international body so riven with venality and mocks all values of human decency?    

Do these individuals truly expect liberals like myself to buy in to their claims of moral superiority and sense of moral purpose? Or view their true motives stemming from a blind religious quest for moral atonement to hide the cowardice of its rotten, vacuous core?

where does that leave eugenics?  Darwinism is not necessarily eugenics, there is some distinction, but in a culture that already approves of put-grandma-to-sleep, the sledgehammer of state reasoning is not likely to distinguish the difference.

The only policy we should have with the EU is accepting refugees. 

Marcfrans's fourth point, about how the U.S. Supreme Court will have to reverse an idiotic decision from a lower court dominated by lefties, reminds me of why I nearly always end up voting for Republican candidates.  My fellow academics are stunned by my voting Republic, of course, especially because I am gay.  They think "progressive jurists" are precisely what I should most want.  The fight for freedom of expression is an uphill battle when our academic elites are the worst bullies in this regard.

1) The subject under discussion here is the fact that today one can again get convicted in Germany (but also in Belgium, France, etc...) SIMPLY for expressing an opinion.  Just like this was the case in Germany under Hitler, or as is the case in today's totalitarian societies (China, Cuba, etc...).   If the authorities want to make an example of you, they will single you out and put you in jail.  That will keep the rest well 'in line', all in furtherance of their 'pensee unique'.

2) George2 points out correctly that such power in the hands of rulers will inevitably be SELECTIVELY used against political opponents.  His rethorical question cannot be answered, for there is no real difference between selective abuse of legislative and judicial power by nazis or by the current German ruling 'elite' to impose their respective dogmatic beliefs.

3) In response, Schaveiger puts his head in the sand and ignores the issue at hand.  He starts off with a meaningless opening sentence about abortion being subject to "medical and psychic" conditions".  What is the relevance of this sentence?  The issue or subject under discussion is NOT under what conditions the law 'regulates' abortion, but the issue is that there is no tolerance for freedom of speech in contemporary Germany!    He then goes on making all sorts of assertions, which suggest that he is convinced of his own monopoly of 'the truth'.  He seems to think that only "clerics" can have "dogmatic beliefs".  I suggest that he looks closer to home to discern "dogmas".  He also clearly does not know what "fundamentalism" means.  Fundamentalism can best be described as holding beliefs-with-certainty, i.e. with an unquestioning attitude, as opposed to holding beliefs with an open mind, i.e. a mind that is open to new or additional evidence, and that tolerates apparently contradictory observations and/or evidence.  Anybody can claim himself to be whatever he wants to be.  So we cannot judge people solely by their words, but we must look at their actions too.   Perhaps the surest way to be able to distinguish between a  "fundamentalist" and a tolerant person, is to see whether the person in question can tolerate other opinions than his own being expressed.  "Fundamentalists" surely do not tolerate the freedom of speech of people with opinions contrary to their own.  So we have here the ridiculous spectacle of a fundamentalist, i.e. Schaveiger, calling some one else (Johannes Lerle) a "Fundamentalist".   But, there is NO EVIDENCE that Lerle would be prepared to deny Shaveiger his freedom to express his opinions.  By contrast, the commentaries of Schaveiger clearly demonstrate that he is quite prepared to deny others the freedom to express opinions of which he disapproves.     Can anybody be surprised that actual fundamentalists would not hesitate to apply that 'slur' word to possibly-tolerant people?

4) One of America's best truly-conservative commentators, George Will, said it best in an op-ed piece for the Washington Post today.

"...it was predictable that the right of free speech would increasingly be sacrificed to various social objectives that free speech 'supposedly' impedes. And it was predictable that speech suppression would become an instrument of cultural combat, used to settle ideological scores and advance political agendas by silencing adversaries."

His comment was made in the context of the most recent outrageous decision by the 9th Circuit Court (with jurisdiction for the US West Coast states, and which is controlled by radical lefties) to uphold some speech suppression by some local authority in the San Francisco area. Luckily, the US Supreme Court will undoubtedly overrule this latest outrage of the 9th Circuit Court, and provide the necessary checks and balances. In the US, the radical intolerant CULTURAL (not limited to political) left may rule certain levers of power and control some barns, but in Europe today they seem to run the whole farm (with no checks and balances).

"Volksverhetzung is a crime which the Nazis often invoked against their enemies and which contemporary Germany also uses to intimidate homeschoolers. Soon, the German authorities will be able to use the same charge against people who question Darwin’s evolution theory."

It should be noted that also "Beleidigung" (insult) is a crime which the Nazis often invoked against their enemies. Catholic clerics like Father Johann Maria Lenz and Father Rupert Mayer were arrested, some even murdered, because of alleged "insults" against the Reich.

While "Verleumdung" (slander) means "spreading false accusations", "insult" is not specified by anything (nulla poena sine lege). In reality - like in Nazi Germany - the irrational accusation of "insult" is used to protect the crimes of politicians, judges, murderers etc., while anybody is criminalized who spreads the truth about politicians, judges, murderers etc.

See also:
http://www.presseanzeiger.de/meldungen/recht-gesetz/233306.php

"a German court sentenced a 55-year old Lutheran pastor to one year in jail for “Volksverhetzung” (incitement of the people) because he compared the killing of the unborn in contemporary Germany to the holocaust."

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh my G-d!  I think with the unificiation they are likely to be even less democratic. 

Without freedom of economy, property ownership, free speech and taxation WITH representation you are not living in a free society.  I don't care what the lefty international groups say about Germany and Sweden and Norway but they are NOT free.

Dan "The only reason for jailing creationists and intelligent design adherents is because at some level they believe they can’t win the argument."

I think this comes under "Holocaust mitigation" and really has nothing to do with the basic arguments of yours that I disagree with but would fight for the right for you to express them.

"Hirsi Ali, Fortuyn and van Gogh did not defend Europe’s traditional Christian moral order."

No they defended the current Dutch Moral Order which is why they are all heros here. I find it odd that right wingers like to quote them.

Is abortion not subject to strict medical and/or psychic conditions anymore ?. Clerics have always been against abortion because of the dogmas of their beliefs. But clerics have never experienced unwanted pregnancy caused by f.e. rapes. Therefore comparing abortion to the holocaust is a step too far and tends to a fundamentalist attitude.

Concerning the struggle between Creationists and Evolutionists, we find again the same players i.e. clerics/believers and the others. Darwinists are often wrong and they recognize it, because they're scientists. One can't say that from the Creationists, who stick to their belief but are unable to give a single scientific proof of what they believe in. What happens lately in the USA is that the Creationists and the ID-passionates are trying to squeeze out the Evolution teaching. Not because they believe that they're right but because they know that the scientific evidence comes closer and closer proving that they're definitely wrong . And this will be the end of the Faith-business, for which they're scared to death.

It is a crime to say that the total of the German abortions equals or corresponds to the holocaust. This is 'incitement of the people' because the unborn are not humans.

So what happens when you say that living people should be killed if they hamper the way of a particular religion to become the dominant religion, a religion that says what people can eat, what body parts should be cut off, what sexual preference one should have (and you are executed if you don't act on it)?

The Nazis were very selective in the use of the accusation of 'incitement of the people'. People who oppossed the political correct view of that time, incited the people. These people were threatened or ended in a jail or an extermination camp. People telling that Jews, Gipsies, homosexuals should be killed because they did not fit in the idea of Aryan dominant culture, these people were true followers of the faith and did not incite the people.

Can someone please explain me what the difference is between the selective use of the term 'incitement of the people' by the Nazis and by the current leftist political correct elite?

The only reason for jailing creationists and intelligent design adherents is because at some level they believe they can’t win the argument.

Of course the abortion debate is inextricably linked to the creationist debate; though not the only grounds to oppose the practice, there are purely secular ones as well.

The evolution vs creation debate has been going on for a long time in USA but no one (except maybe that teacher in the evolution/creation trial in a location I don't remember the name for now) was convicted of a crime for believing one way or another, but now EU makes law against creationist expressions?????  Why not make laws against fairy tales too.

Now creationists' young earth belief is beyond me, but evolutionists can't establish cause-effect relationships in their theories, which they keep on changing anyway.  Yet they call that a science!  It takes more faith to believe in chance as origin of all living things than to believe in creation.  Are all the "laws" of physics results of randomness too?  Many scientists believe in existence of extraterrestre intelligence, yet our solar system is located in a section of the universe that is much less occupied by stars and constellations than the rest of the universe.  Is that a coincidence or by design?